The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant operated “IBC” in Ulsan-gu H for about two years, and the monthly expenditure is approximately KRW 8 million and the monthly revenue is about KRW 5 million, and there is a situation in which the Plaintiff would be 3 million and there is no intention or ability to repay the price even if he purchases real estate from others.

Nevertheless, around May 17, 2010, the Defendant purchased the said real estate at the office of “D judicial scrivener” located in the Gu, Si, Si, Gu, Si, Si, Gu, the victim E, with the content that “The Defendant will succeed to the loan of 55 million won of community credit cooperatives to the above real estate by June 20, 2010, which is the Defendant’s son, until June 20, 2010.”

However, there was no intention or ability to accept the loan even if the defendant purchased the above real estate due to the difficulty of the defendant's operation of the car page.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired property gains equivalent to KRW 55 million, which is the sales price, by completing the registration of ownership transfer in G name on May 20, 2010.

2. The decision of the court below's sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

A. In a criminal trial, the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant is doubtful even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant purchased 302 Gumi-si Building 302 (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") from the victim E on May 17, 2010, and the above real estate is substituted for the payment of the purchase price.